Players a bit unlucky not to have more capso

[John Lambies Doos]

Not sure that's what happened. It seemed like he just wasn't fancied when he was on really great form, then made his debut, looked largely ineffectual, missed a few chances that you'd really expect him to take, then started getting phased out.  
He was another in the long line of players who were considered "the answer", until the question was actually asked.  An absolutely wonderful player (when he was on form) but you have to set up the team in a very particular way to make use of him.  We could never really afford the luxury of setting up that way, and probably didn't have the players to do it effectively anyway.  

Levein and Strachan wanted a 1 man up front hold the ball up take to the corner striker e.g Kenny Miller. That's why Rhodes never got picked

[Gordopolis]

Not sure that's what happened. It seemed like he just wasn't fancied when he was on really great form, then made his debut, looked largely ineffectual, missed a few chances that you'd really expect him to take, then started getting phased out.  
He was another in the long line of players who were considered "the answer", until the question was actually asked.  An absolutely wonderful player (when he was on form) but you have to set up the team in a very particular way to make use of him.  We could never really afford the luxury of setting up that way, and probably didn't have the players to do it effectively anyway.  

By 'wrote him off' i meant almost exactly what you've described. He actually looked really sharp on his debut iirc (treating his first start vs Australia as his 'debut' and scored an absolutely sublime goal while playing as the lone front man). I totally get that he lacks many other attributes but he was imo undeused between 2012 and 2016

[forameus]

4 minutes ago, John Lambies Doos said:

2 hours ago, forameus said:

Not sure that's what happened. It seemed like he just wasn't fancied when he was on really great form, then made his debut, looked largely ineffectual, missed a few chances that you'd really expect him to take, then started getting phased out.  
He was another in the long line of players who were considered "the answer", until the question was actually asked.  An absolutely wonderful player (when he was on form) but you have to set up the team in a very particular way to make use of him.  We could never really afford the luxury of setting up that way, and probably didn't have the players to do it effectively anyway.  

Levein and Strachan wanted a 1 man up front hold the ball up take to the corner striker e.g Kenny Miller. That's why Rhodes never got picked

Well, not really.  I said why he didn't get picked.  Would agree it's because he didn't fit into the system that we were playing, but then I said that.  He wasn't good enough for us to set up a team - which in itself wasn't good enough to do so - purely to get the best out of him.  When he did get the chance - admittedly in a system that didn't quite suit him - he didn't look good enough, and he didn't offer anywhere near enough.  When you're a player whose only real attribute is putting himself in the positions to score and doing so, you don't last very long when you're not doing the latter.  But because he was good (and now used to be good) the fans latch onto him as either a stick to beat the manager with (whits the manager daein Tom?!) or a stick to hang all of your hope on (aye, but if Rhodes started...)  We did it with Fletcher when he took the huff, we did it with Rhodes, and we'll likely do it again.

[John Lambies Doos]

Well, not really.  I said why he didn't get picked.  Would agree it's because he didn't fit into the system that we were playing, but then I said that.  He wasn't good enough for us to set up a team - which in itself wasn't good enough to do so - purely to get the best out of him.  When he did get the chance - admittedly in a system that didn't quite suit him - he didn't look good enough, and he didn't offer anywhere near enough.  When you're a player whose only real attribute is putting himself in the positions to score and doing so, you don't last very long when you're not doing the latter.  But because he was good (and now used to be good) the fans latch onto him as either a stick to beat the manager with (whits the manager daein Tom?!) or a stick to hang all of your hope on (aye, but if Rhodes started...)  We did it with Fletcher when he took the huff, we did it with Rhodes, and we'll likely do it again.

Still qualified for f**k all under our suited formation

[forameus]

1 minute ago, Gordopolis said:

By 'wrote him off' i meant almost exactly what you've described. He actually looked really sharp on his debut iirc (treating his first start vs Australia as his 'debut' and scored an absolutely sublime goal while playing as the lone front man). I totally get that he lacks many other attributes but he was imo undeused between 2012 and 2016

Fair enough.  I see "unlucky" as being those that deserved more caps though, and I'm not sure Rhodes really did.  He did look really good on his debut (which I still remember not so fondly for the misjudged trek to Easter Road and then taking fucking ages to get home), good diving header wasn't it?  but he never really got back to anywhere close to that.

Had we had the players to set up in a way that would have got the best out of him, but still didn't do that, I'd say he was more unlucky.  It's semantics though.

[forameus]

Just now, John Lambies Doos said:

2 minutes ago, forameus said:

Well, not really.  I said why he didn't get picked.  Would agree it's because he didn't fit into the system that we were playing, but then I said that.  He wasn't good enough for us to set up a team - which in itself wasn't good enough to do so - purely to get the best out of him.  When he did get the chance - admittedly in a system that didn't quite suit him - he didn't look good enough, and he didn't offer anywhere near enough.  When you're a player whose only real attribute is putting himself in the positions to score and doing so, you don't last very long when you're not doing the latter.  But because he was good (and now used to be good) the fans latch onto him as either a stick to beat the manager with (whits the manager daein Tom?!) or a stick to hang all of your hope on (aye, but if Rhodes started...)  We did it with Fletcher when he took the huff, we did it with Rhodes, and we'll likely do it again.

Still qualified for f**k all under our suited formation

That's right then, we should have just changed to shell balls in at Rhodes and gone 4-4-facking-2.  Never mind that we were arguably strongest in midfield at that time, let's just take one of them away.  And never mind that they'll likely always go up against more packed midfields and get the run around.  Or that we don't really have wingers that like to stay on the wing and cross balls.  

We would have DEFINITELY qualified that way.

[John Lambies Doos]

That's right then, we should have just changed to shell balls in at Rhodes and gone 4-4-facking-2.  Never mind that we were arguably strongest in midfield at that time, let's just take one of them away.  And never mind that they'll likely always go up against more packed midfields and get the run around.  Or that we don't really have wingers that like to stay on the wing and cross balls.  
We would have DEFINITELY qualified that way.

A lot of other teams with lesser players qualified in said 20 yr period for tournaments. We didn't get the best of luck but to say that lasted 20yrs would be bizarre. At least have a home and away formation. At home we should have been far more attacking minded. Our system over last 20yrs has failed us, that's a fact.

[forameus]

4 minutes ago, John Lambies Doos said:

7 minutes ago, forameus said:

That's right then, we should have just changed to shell balls in at Rhodes and gone 4-4-facking-2.  Never mind that we were arguably strongest in midfield at that time, let's just take one of them away.  And never mind that they'll likely always go up against more packed midfields and get the run around.  Or that we don't really have wingers that like to stay on the wing and cross balls.  
We would have DEFINITELY qualified that way.

A lot of other teams with lesser players qualified in said 20 yr period for tournaments. We didn't get the best of luck but to say that lasted 20yrs would be bizarre. At least have a home and away formation. At home we should have been far more attacking minded. Our system over last 20yrs has failed us, that's a fact.

It's no more or less of a fact than "<insert what's pissing you off currently> has failed us for 20 years".  It's either the manager, the players, the system, when really it's a combination of everything.  

But it's easy for fans to put out weak comments like "far more attacking minded" without it actually meaning anything.  It's wonderfully easy to say.  But you have to set up a team to be balanced, and be aware of your own shortcomings.  Setting up a flat 4-4-2 might have seen us qualify, but it's easy to see some pretty glaring problems that such a system would have.  In fact, one of the times I can remember Strachan throwing caution to the wind was against Gibraltar at home, when he decided that they were pish and we only really needed three at the back, two of which were given licence to charge forward.  They scored their first goal in competitive football as a direct result, and he quickly changed that.

Our best chance is for a manager to be flexible but pragmatic.  Not shite fan/media calls of "we're at home, we should be playing two up front", but being able to look at our opponent, know roughly how they're going to play, and set out the squad we have in the way that they believe gives us the best chance of getting a result.  If that means playing a high line and putting them under pressure in a cavalier and swashbuckling fashion, then fine, but also if that means sitting 11 men behind the ball at Hampden and playing the sweatiest of sweaty strategies designed purely to frustrate and hope that we nick an own goal off their keeper's arse, then that's fine too.  If our only strategy is "we're at home, we attack" then we will get regularly crucified, and not just by the bigger nations.  Then you'll likely come back on here and cry about how we've failed again, and that we should change things again.  

[John Lambies Doos]

It's no more or less of a fact than " has failed us for 20 years".  It's either the manager, the players, the system, when really it's a combination of everything.  
But it's easy for fans to put out weak comments like "far more attacking minded" without it actually meaning anything.  It's wonderfully easy to say.  But you have to set up a team to be balanced, and be aware of your own shortcomings.  Setting up a flat 4-4-2 might have seen us qualify, but it's easy to see some pretty glaring problems that such a system would have.  In fact, one of the times I can remember Strachan throwing caution to the wind was against Gibraltar at home, when he decided that they were pish and we only really needed three at the back, two of which were given licence to charge forward.  They scored their first goal in competitive football as a direct result, and he quickly changed that.
Our best chance is for a manager to be flexible but pragmatic.  Not shite fan/media calls of "we're at home, we should be playing two up front", but being able to look at our opponent, know roughly how they're going to play, and set out the squad we have in the way that they believe gives us the best chance of getting a result.  If that means playing a high line and putting them under pressure in a cavalier and swashbuckling fashion, then fine, but also if that means sitting 11 men behind the ball at Hampden and playing the sweatiest of sweaty strategies designed purely to frustrate and hope that we nick an own goal off their keeper's arse, then that's fine too.  If our only strategy is "we're at home, we attack" then we will get regularly crucified, and not just by the bigger nations.  Then you'll likely come back on here and cry about how we've failed again, and that we should change things again.  

Nobody is crying m8. Just very frustrated that we have underperformed for 20 yrs

[forameus]

1 minute ago, John Lambies Doos said:

5 minutes ago, forameus said:

It's no more or less of a fact than " has failed us for 20 years".  It's either the manager, the players, the system, when really it's a combination of everything.  
But it's easy for fans to put out weak comments like "far more attacking minded" without it actually meaning anything.  It's wonderfully easy to say.  But you have to set up a team to be balanced, and be aware of your own shortcomings.  Setting up a flat 4-4-2 might have seen us qualify, but it's easy to see some pretty glaring problems that such a system would have.  In fact, one of the times I can remember Strachan throwing caution to the wind was against Gibraltar at home, when he decided that they were pish and we only really needed three at the back, two of which were given licence to charge forward.  They scored their first goal in competitive football as a direct result, and he quickly changed that.
Our best chance is for a manager to be flexible but pragmatic.  Not shite fan/media calls of "we're at home, we should be playing two up front", but being able to look at our opponent, know roughly how they're going to play, and set out the squad we have in the way that they believe gives us the best chance of getting a result.  If that means playing a high line and putting them under pressure in a cavalier and swashbuckling fashion, then fine, but also if that means sitting 11 men behind the ball at Hampden and playing the sweatiest of sweaty strategies designed purely to frustrate and hope that we nick an own goal off their keeper's arse, then that's fine too.  If our only strategy is "we're at home, we attack" then we will get regularly crucified, and not just by the bigger nations.  Then you'll likely come back on here and cry about how we've failed again, and that we should change things again.  

Nobody is crying m8. Just very frustrated that we have underperformed for 20 yrs

As I imagine every Scotland fan is, but if it was as easy as "just attack" I'd imagine we'd have done that.  I completely agree that we can't just stick to one system - like I said, I just want us to have someone pragmatic in charge that can know when to change it.  4-2-3-1 did suit the players we have available, but there were certain games where it wasn't the right way to go and we still stuck with it.  Hopefully McLeish can prepare us a bit better to be more flexible.  Time will tell.

[Peppino Impastato]

7 hours ago, forameus said:

Because when he did get the chance, he was pure dead brilliant, wasn't he?

 A perfect example of the grass is always greener problem we always have had, and likely always will have.  chances for us to be able

We have no idea.  He didn't get enough chances for us to be able to say.

[Peppino Impastato]

7 hours ago, forameus said:

Well, not really.  I said why he didn't get picked.  Would agree it's because he didn't fit into the system that we were playing, but then I said that.  He wasn't good enough for us to set up a team - which in itself wasn't good enough to do so - purely to get the best out of him.  When he did get the chance - admittedly in a system that didn't quite suit him - he didn't look good enough, and he didn't offer anywhere near enough.  When you're a player whose only real attribute is putting himself in the positions to score and doing so, you don't last very long when you're not doing the latter.  But because he was good (and now used to be good) the fans latch onto him as either a stick to beat the manager with (whits the manager daein Tom?!) or a stick to hang all of your hope on (aye, but if Rhodes started...)  We did it with Fletcher when he took the huff, we did it with Rhodes, and we'll likely do it again.

Straw man argument.  He wasn't good enough and our team wasn't good enough to set uup blah blah are bs arguments you literally made up.  

[Peppino Impastato]

7 hours ago, forameus said:

Fair enough.  I see "unlucky" as being those that deserved more caps though, and I'm not sure Rhodes really did.  He did look really good on his debut (which I still remember not so fondly for the misjudged trek to Easter Road and then taking fucking ages to get home), good diving header wasn't it?  but he never really got back to anywhere close to that.

Had we had the players to set up in a way that would have got the best out of him, but still didn't do that, I'd say he was more unlucky.  It's semantics though.

Of course we had the players.  You're just making up reasons.

[Peppino Impastato]

7 hours ago, forameus said:

That's right then, we should have just changed to shell balls in at Rhodes and gone 4-4-facking-2.  Never mind that we were arguably strongest in midfield at that time, let's just take one of them away.  And never mind that they'll likely always go up against more packed midfields and get the run around.  Or that we don't really have wingers that like to stay on the wing and cross balls.  

We would have DEFINITELY qualified that way.

Nobody said 442, another Straw man.  And fullbacks actually cross the ball at least as much as wide midfielders.  Alan Hutton could overlap and do that all day, much more effectively with Rhodes than miller.

[Peppino Impastato]

With passers like Fletcher to play him in too.

[Peppino Impastato]

7 hours ago, forameus said:

As I imagine every Scotland fan is, but if it was as easy as "just attack" I'd imagine we'd have done that.  I completely agree that we can't just stick to one system - like I said, I just want us to have someone pragmatic in charge that can know when to change it.  4-2-3-1 did suit the players we have available, but there were certain games where it wasn't the right way to go and we still stuck with it.  Hopefully McLeish can prepare us a bit better to be more flexible.  Time will tell.

4231 suited Rhodes pretty well too. 

[forameus]

You do know there's a multi-quote option, right?  I mean, it wouldn't let you be the same tedious moron as you usually are, so probably not quite your thing, but still.

Published 

[Stellaboz]

Andy Smith. Brilliant striker and much underrated by everyone outside of Dunfermline at the time.

Also, Barry Nicholson. 2 caps playing right back ffs, should have had more.

Going further back, I've been told Roy Barry was another who should have been capped.

Brewster already mentioned. Criminal not to play him and Crawford at a time they ripped the league up.

Gary McSwegen was another who might have been given an opportunity.

[tree house tam]

4 hours ago, Stellaboz said:

Andy Smith. Brilliant striker and much underrated by everyone outside of Dunfermline at the time.

Also, Barry Nicholson. 2 caps playing right back ffs, should have had more.

Going further back, I've been told Roy Barry was another who should have been capped.

Brewster already mentioned. Criminal not to play him and Crawford at a time they ripped the league up.

Gary McSwegen was another who might have been given an opportunity.

Nicholson aye, the rest? Not for me.

[skippy2015]

A lot of other teams with lesser players qualified in said 20 yr period for tournaments. We didn't get the best of luck but to say that lasted 20yrs would be bizarre. At least have a home and away formation. At home we should have been far more attacking minded. Our system over last 20yrs has failed us, that's a fact.

Good point. Mcleishs formation of a back 3 with wingbacks will suit us more away from home especially against stronger opposition. I would still like us to play 4 - 2 - 3 - 1 we played under strachan in home matches. feel we do have good wide players like Fraser Phillips Forrest etc and think Robertson Tierney play better when they have someone wide to support.

If we do go 4-2-3-1 at home don’t know why Mcleish rules out playing Tierney right back I thought he had a good understanding with Forrest on the right and played well there the last campaign.